role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

February 24, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Feb-24 (PDF)

L047 - Tue 24 Feb 2015 / Mar 24 fév 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 24 February 2015 Mardi 24 février 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport (accroître la sécurité routière en Ontario)

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Curriculum

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Senior citizens

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Services for the developmentally disabled

By-election in Sudbury

Élection partielle à Sudbury / By-election in Sudbury

Invasive species

By-election in Sudbury

Élection partielle à Sudbury / By-election in Sudbury

Energy policies

Visitors

Correction of record

Correction of record

Deferred Votes

Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport (accroître la sécurité routière en Ontario)

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Rural health services

Alzheimer’s disease

Chris Williams and Craig Mann

Canadian National Institute for the Blind

Buy local

Della Taylor

Belleville Downtown DocFest

Safehaven

Domestic violence

Private members’ public business

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Black History Month

Petitions

Energy policies

Public transit

Legal aid

Property taxation

Water fluoridation

Student safety

Trespassing

Gasoline prices

Hispanic Heritage Month

Taxation

First responders

Hispanic Heritage Month

Hydro rates

Orders of the Day

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport (accroître la sécurité routière en Ontario)

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 23, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Highway 407 East Act, 2012 and the Highway Traffic Act in respect of various matters and to make a consequential amendment to the Provincial Offences Act / Projet de loi 31, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2012 sur l’autoroute 407 Est et le Code de la route en ce qui concerne diverses questions et apportant une modification corrélative à la

Loi sur les infractions provinciales.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated this issue the member from Perth–Wellington completed his statements. We are now into the rotation of questions and comments. Questions and comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’ll be joining the debate later on, so I’ll give you a preview of some of the comments I’ll be sharing with you.

One of the areas I want to talk about is how important a cycling strategy is for the province and how glad I am to see the fact that we have a number of additions to this bill, issues that we’ve raised as the NDP and issues that we think will certainly increase and encourage cycling in our province.

I also think it’s important to recognize that we certainly do want to keep our roads safe. This is something that is really not a partisan issue; everyone wants to ensure that our roads are safe so that we can prevent injuries and prevent needless deaths as well. But connected to that, we also have to talk about the fact that, given that our roads are so safe and given our work to make them safer, it’s troubling that we’re paying some of the highest insurance rates in the entire country. This is a troubling trend.

I also want to spend some time talking about some of the mistakes the government has made and the fact that the government hasn’t learned from those mistakes. When it comes to the privatization of testing centres, we know very well that there are significant problems with that system. Serco has proven to have an utter lack of accountability when it comes to the proper testing. We’ve seen that with commercial vehicles and we know this is no surprise.

When you outsource, the primary concern of outsourcing is that it lacks accountability. It makes it more difficult for the government to provide the oversight necessary to ensure that whatever the system is, whatever the outsourced service is, it’s being done in a meaningful and a proper and appropriate way.

Now, making a mistake is one thing. Not correcting it is another and then making the exact same type of mistake is even worse. The government is now embarking upon another vehicle inspection centre program which seems to be along that same line.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further responses?

Hon. Mario Sergio: We are dealing with Bill 31. If my memory serves me well, during the debate in this House we had something like 65 members speaking on this bill already—65 members. We had 13 hours of debate. We all believe that we understand the importance of moving the bill ahead for the purpose that the bill wants to do. So I think it’s time that we move on, Speaker, and we get the bill to a vote in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: While I hear the minister responsible for seniors wants to just shut this down and get it over with, we still have members who would like to speak to the bill. It’s an important bill in their communities. There are a lot of changes that are taking place in this bill, and I’m supporting the bill. I believe there are a lot of positive changes in this bill, such as the increased penalties for texting or inappropriate use of communication devices or distracted driving. I think that’s a hugely important issue, and I spoke to this earlier in the House.

The POA fines is an issue that I think is very, very important to our municipal partners—and our municipal partners are down at OGRA/ROMA this week.

You know, what is sad about the House, when it comes to OGRA/ROMA—and it’s a very important conference for me, as a member from rural Ontario—is that in years gone past, this House would be recessed so that we as MPPs could spend that time with our municipal partners down at the conference. Unfortunately, this government has decided to sit during the OGRA/ROMA conference. Yet—and I think it’s a great idea—we recessed the House so that we could travel to the International Plowing Match to wave at folks from a float and then enjoy a couple of speeches. But we still sit during OGRA/ROMA.

I put it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, if you really believe that our relationship with our municipal partners is the strongest intergovernmental relationship in this country—which I believe it is—then why don’t you recess this House so that we can be down there spending our time with our municipal partners, assisting them on their issues and working with them on the things that we can collaborate on? Would that not make more sense?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Nickel Belt for further questions and comments.

M me France Gélinas: I am very interested in the bill that we are debating right now. The short name of the bill is Making Ontario’s Roads Safer. There are a number of ways to make roads safer that are included in the bill, but some of the ways that northerners want to see change to make our roads safer in northern Ontario are not included in the bill, and this is very troublesome to me.

I represent one of those big northern ridings. We have roads, just like everybody else, but they’re not in as good shape as the roads that you find everywhere else, if you look at the city of Greater Sudbury and the number of kilometres of road that they have to maintain. As well, if you look at the big users of those roads in Nickel Belt, the representatives for Nickel Belt—we have a lot of nickel mines in Nickel Belt. All of the mines are in my riding. In order to bring the ore to the smelter, to the crusher, it’s all being done by trucks.

Those trucks are heavy; they take a toll on our roads, and our infrastructure is in need of upgrades. As well, as you all know, this is wintertime. In the winter, they need winter maintenance.

All of those things would make our roads so much safer—making sure that they are maintained in a way that keeps them safe. Last week I had an opportunity to read a number of letters that I received from my constituents about one chunk of road between Chelmsford and Cartier, but there are many other provincial roads that are in dire need of upgrade, and that would make them safer.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The time for questions and comments has expired. We go back to the member for Perth–Wellington for his final comments.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to thank the minister for seniors, the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, the member from Nickel Belt and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for their comments.

Speaker, I don’t know whether you were here yesterday and listened to what I was talking about, but I mostly talked about the trucking industry. The reason I did that was because I was a little bit mixed up as to what we were trying to accomplish here. As I said in my comments, the OTA, which is the Ontario Trucking Association, has advocated for the extension of B-train combinations “to accommodate more comfortable sleeper berths,” and that’s fine; I agree with that. But there are more types of trains than B-trains.

So my question is this: If you take that tractor, which is the power unit in front of your trailer, and put it on another trailer, like a long, 53-foot van or an A-train, which is another kind of trailer, is that going to make it legal? Is it going to make it illegal? That’s not addressed in this bill.

I think also, in my comments yesterday, I informed the House that I had had a trucking licence since 1978, and I just gave it up last year. That’s how long I had an AZ trucking licence. My experience with driving was that I drove these units, but most of my experience is with livestock.

I’d just like to give the Speaker a little bit of advice, if you’ll indulge me. You’ve seen these livestock trailers going along the highway. One of the worst things you can do is park beside one at a stoplight, because every once in a while one of the animals has to relieve itself, and it will come out of the holes and sometimes deposit itself on top of your car. So I would suggest that when you see these trailers you might want to stay away from them until the light turns green and away you go.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the member from Perth–Wellington and also remind the member that references to whether someone may or may not be in this Legislature are actually not parliamentary, in my opinion.

Further debate?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’m going to share my thoughts on Bill 31. I want to begin just by prefacing that I’m certainly in agreement with the bill in general. There are some serious areas, though, that I’d like to draw the attention of the Legislature to, which are troubling, and I’m hoping that we can flesh out those issues so that the issues are laid out before us before we go into committee. So I think it’s very important for us to discuss these issues, to raise them, to make sure they’re very clear and that we know where we’re headed when we go into committee.

In general, the bill is certainly a step forward, and it does improve a number of areas which were much needed. I must acknowledge that before I begin. But there are certain areas that definitely need attention, and we need to highlight those areas that are problematic.

Let me begin generally with the areas that are supportable, that have no issue whatsoever. We’ve already acknowledged, in terms of the Legislature, but with evidence we know that distracted driving is increasingly the primary cause of accidents and, in some cases, death in our province. Legislation to ensure that we address that is of paramount concern when it comes to road safety.

A number of independent organizations have said that distracted driving now is as much as, if not more so, a contributor to serious injuries on the road. This distracted driving particularly includes hand-held devices, smart phones, texting and driving. So increasing the penalties around that certainly is an important step to ensure that distracted driving is addressed.

The second issue, though, is that I think it’s important for us to really work on a more robust education program around that. I think there’s not enough people who know that distracted driving now is competing with drunk driving or impaired driving, in terms of one of the leading causes for folks who get injured on the road. If people knew that, I think it would certainly discourage people from texting and driving, or discourage people from using their smart phones or other devices that would distract them while they’re driving.

I think if more people knew the facts around that, if more people knew that it’s literally the leading cause of injuries, I think people would be more likely to stop that behaviour. I think that’s something that we need to really work on.

In addition to these sanctions, there needs to be an education component, and the bill doesn’t have that focus on an education component to ensure people know that it’s a serious issue.

The drugged driving provisions are, of course, something that we support. It’s well-established, and MADD has done some great work around this. We know there is absolutely no excuse to being inebriated, impaired, by alcohol or by drugs and being behind the wheel. That’s absolutely unacceptable. We need to make that message loud and clear, and I think it’s very loud and clear. This bill strengthens that message.

The cycling provisions are very important and it’s an area that I personally am very attached to, as an avid cyclist. I use my bike to get around when I’m downtown, even in these temperatures. Yesterday, I biked to the ROMA—

M me France Gélinas: I saw him so it’s true.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My colleague from Nickel Belt saw me bicycling. I think the wind chill was approaching minus 30, and I was cycling from Queen’s Park to Union.

The point being that it’s a great way to get around; it’s fun. Even in cold weather, it’s still fun. I had a nice Canadian-made jacket on—union-made, I might add.

Hon. James J. Bradley: What kind?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Canada Goose, actually. It was a Canada Goose jacket.

Hon. James J. Bradley: They’re expensive.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s sometimes worth it when you support local industries, Canadian industries. I’m a firm believer in that whenever I can.

The other area that I think is important to notice in terms of the provisions is, we have a cycling provision; we have a number of areas that are important. We need to make cycling not only safer, but we need to encourage it, to encourage people to get on the road and cycle. One of the first obstacles to cycling is that people feel that it’s not safe. People are concerned that if they get on the road—they see other cars, they see the situation that they have to get into, and they’re like, “I don’t want to even try to cycle downtown. It seems too dangerous. It seems too hectic.

I won’t do it.” The more we can encourage safety, the more we can make it a safer practice, the more likely it is that people will get on their bicycles and start to cycle. We need to create that environment.

I think these steps that we’ve taken are good steps, particularly, where it’s practicable, the one-metre provision when overtaking a cyclist; it’s important. We need to do more around that. We need to do more around encouraging people to cycle. It’s one of those things that not only improves gridlock; it also takes people out of their cars, it encourages quicker flow of traffic, and it also addresses health. It also addresses the fact that, as a society, we’re seeing more and more illnesses that are preventable, and they could be prevented by something as simple as exercise.

If we encouraging cycling, we’re addressing not only an issue that would deal with, perhaps, some area of traffic gridlock and moving around the city, but it also addresses health, and that’s wonderful when we have something you can address too.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Environment.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: In addition, as my colleague from London–Fanshawe points out—and it’s absolutely true—it would also address the environment. Getting people out of cars where it’s possible, particularly in urban centres, would then create less pollution, which is a great initiative.

Those are some of the good points. I’ve pointed out some of the areas where we can improve.

But there are certain areas which are very troubling, and I want to highlight them. When it comes to the 407—I want to make this really clear, and people have talked about this; this is very troubling. Currently, the way the 407 is set up, it’s legislated that there is an obligation to consult the public before rates are increased, before tolls are increased. There is that legislated component that requires the 407 to consult with the public before we see our tolls go up. That is being removed by this bill. That in no way makes our roads safer.

We’ve talked about creative titles to bills. Much of the bill does improve road safety, and that’s true. But I don’t see how including a provision to remove the obligation to consult the public when raising tolls has anything to do with road safety.

While I agree with the primary components of this bill, I certainly don’t agree with that. I know my constituents are completely upset about the fact that they pay so much already in tolls on the 407, and to see that one element of a little bit of fairness in the consultation process even being removed.

We know this government has had a number of problems when it comes to proper consultation. We can look back to the siting of the gas plants and the lack of proper consultation there. We can look to current examples of a lack of consultation like the fact that parents are upset in this province about the curriculum. Many of them are simply upset because they weren’t consulted. That could have been easily addressed. There could have been an easy consultation process that made sure it was inclusive and made sure it was broad to address the fact that people are upset. Let’s hear their concerns.

Why is it that the government hasn’t learned from open consultations? It’s a simple solution. We’ve seen the government make this mistake time and time again. Why not just create, in all circumstances—where possible—an open and inclusive consultation process? When it comes to the gas plants, you didn’t do it properly there. When it comes to this curriculum, you could avoid problems and you could avoid issues when people are involved in the decision-making. In this situation you’re removing the right to consult.

This is another example, again, of the direction that the government is taking. Why not just allow for consultation? It’s something that doesn’t hurt the government. In fact, it always assists the government when we allow people to have their voice heard. It makes them feel vested; it makes them feel appreciated. It’s something as simple as that.

At the end of the day, the government will make the decision. If we disagree with it, as opposition we might oppose it. We might raise issues and we might raise concerns. But at the minimum the government should always consult. The fact that in this bill they’re removing that right is simply unacceptable.

In addition, there’s a track record where the government makes a mistake, doesn’t correct the mistake, then makes an additional mistake of the exact same type, and that’s when it comes to the outsourcing and privatization of a service model; for example, the driver licensing system. The fact that it’s been outsourced to Serco has raised a number of concerns.

We’ve seen report after report outlining serious flaws with the commercial licensing issues around the fact that the outsourcing doesn’t allow for proper government oversight and you have licenses that are given out in ways and in circumstances that are questionable. There is a question around the quality of the education and the quality of the testing, and we have drivers that perhaps are not as well-trained as they could be.

Now in addition to the outsourcing of Serco, we have a motor vehicle inspection centre which is also going to be outsourced, which will also have that same set of problems where there won’t be proper oversight of the system, there won’t be proper accountability. You’ve made a mistake in the past, you haven’t learned from it, and you’re making it again. Thank you very much, Speaker. That wraps up my time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Comments and questions.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course I rise in support of Bill 31. The bill has now been debated for over 13 hours. Over 65 members of the Legislature have either spoken to this bill or participated in the debate during questions and comments. Listening to the debate, it’s clear that the majority of members are in support of this bill. Of course, why would they not be?

There are important outcomes, such as controlling the issue around impaired driving, both from drugs and alcohol; the issue of distracted driving; medically unfit drivers; truck, vehicle and bus safety; pedestrian safety; cyclist safety; the collection of defaulted Provincial Offences Act fines; and of course the important issue of Highway 407 East.

Listening to the debate, I feel that opposition members are basically trying to stall. There’s no reason whatsoever that we shouldn’t move this important piece of legislation forward so we can debate the many other bills that are of great importance to the people of Ontario.

I urge all members to consider that the debate has been very successful. We’ve heard a lot of good ideas. Now it’s important to bring these ideas to the appropriate forum and move on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It seems to be the modus operandi of the government ministers this morning—the Minister of Community and Social Services is on the same refrain as the minister responsible for seniors was earlier. They have their marching orders, of course, and they would never dare to deviate from them. Perhaps they should have had some marching orders when it came to offering inducements to Andrew Olivier up in Sudbury, but I digress.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Or Laurie Scott.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, my goodness, the Minister without Portfolio is the minister without argument when it comes to his trying to make a connection between the past and the present when it comes to corruption. I wasn’t going to go on with this, Mr. Speaker, but the minister seems to want to make that the subject.

When you talk about the situation up in Sudbury, all of these other things that the ministers are talking about never necessitated a report from the Chief Electoral Officer, never resulted in an OPP investigation—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would remind the member of the bill that we are debating, and I would ask that your two-minute commentary—your comments on the debate would be reflective of what the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton has, in fact, spoken to. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much. Maybe you should have cautioned the minister.

I will speak about the government issue on this bill. Maybe if they want to get this bill through—because we support the bill—why doesn’t their House leader have a conversation with our House leader, instead of springing it late last night by cover of OGRA/ROMA and darkness, and changing the agenda this morning? If their House leader would speak to our House leader and say, “Let’s sit down and talk about how we can work something out on this bill,” perhaps that might be a better way to the end.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my honour to join the debate and comment on what the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton has shared with us. I find it interesting that one of his finishing comments was about consultation and having people have their voice heard, and that was immediately followed by the Minister of Community and Social Services saying, “We don’t want to hear you anymore.”

In fact, yesterday the same thing happened. My colleague from Windsor–Tecumseh shared a very sad story about a young lady who was killed on one of our highways, and that was immediately followed by the government side saying, “Sit down and be quiet. We don’t want to hear you anymore.” That seems to be the theme from that side of the room.

The minister also mentioned distracted driving and medically unfit driving. As the Speaker is well aware, in the riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, they are looking at the potential closure of the obstetrics unit in their rural hospital. What that would mean is that expectant parents from that area would then face a long drive down a highway into my riding in order to receive treatment.

We’re talking about a woman who is in duress. She’s in labour, and her birth partner is now travelling a highway—nerves and trying to get a hold of loved ones to let them know where they’re going—and they are now distracted. So we’re putting them in a potentially dangerous situation by closing the obstetrics unit in Leamington.

So I would ask that perhaps the members on the other side, rather than trying to shut down debate would do what it is they have said that they were going to do, which was give everybody an opportunity to speak and be heard. Again, historically, through this debate, that’s not what they have tried to do. I think, as the member from Windsor–Tecumseh pointed out yesterday, after speaking about the death of a young lady and being told, basically, to sit down and be quiet, the treatment from the other side is incredibly disrespectful to the members on this side and the people who have elected us.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It gives me great pleasure to join the debate today in support of Bill 31. If the opposition members care very much about what is happening on our roads and the safety of our roads—it’s all very sad to hear about constituents who have been killed—the best way to get to these people is to speed up the passage of this bill and have it included in the law.

I was reading that, according to recent statistics, 40% of drivers killed in Ontario were found to have drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol in their system. More than that, 14% are repeat offenders, so something has to be done about it. We had so many people speaking about it, and it’s all very nice to hear about different stories, but it seems like everybody is supporting it. So why don’t we speed up the passage of Bill 31, instead of continuing to put speakers up.

Again, listening to the debate, it has been very clear that the majority of members are in support of this bill, and that the signal—again, those tow truck drivers came to me and I had this item added to the bill: “Slow down, move over.” This proposal extends the “Slow down, move over” law to tow trucks that are stopped on the roadside with their amber lights flashing. It is not the case right now. Let’s approve this bill and protect these truck drivers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton for a final two-minute wrap-up.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I want to thank everyone who joined in the debate; thank you for your thoughts and your concerns. This is a bill that we will certainly assist in moving forward. There are a certain of number of areas that we need to address and improve upon. In general, we need to make our roads safer, and we all agree on that. When it comes to the way we make our roads safer, we need to really focus on the education piece as well.

When it comes to cycling safety, I think it’s so important to reiterate that the more we make our roads safer for cyclists, the more people will cycle, and that will have an impact in terms of improving health, improving gridlock and also improving and assisting the environment.

The area that I want to focus on in my last minute or so is the 407. I’m very troubled with respect to the changes and why this was included in this bill, particularly when it comes to the removal of the notice. That was something that was just an assistance, that assisted constituents in my riding. It also helped people in the province of Ontario to make sure they were on top of their bills. The fact that the notification is being removed is unacceptable. In addition, the fact that the legislated consultation process that involved the public is being removed is unacceptable. The government has to learn from the fact that it’s not doing enough when it comes to consultation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Bill 31, as I think members of the House know, not only serves to protect drivers on our roads; it also in fact introduces a number of provisions that will help keep pedestrians and cyclists safe in Ontario. I think that’s different from bills which strictly deal with automobiles and trucks, for instance.

For the last 13 years, Ontario has been ranked either first or second in North America for road safety. I was very intrigued by that when I was the Minister of Transportation. This has been, as I say, for the last 13 years. This isn’t something new; it goes past which governments have been in power, and it speaks well of this Legislature and the governments that have been here.

Our government is proud of our record of having among the safest roads in North America, as I’m sure all members of the Legislature are. But we know there’s always more that we can do to improve our road safety programs. That’s what this bill endeavours to do. As always, keeping our roads safe is the highest priority of, I think, any government, and certainly our government.

The road safety issues that Bill 31 aims to address continue to be persistent challenges in all of Ontario. According to recent statistics, over 45% of drivers killed in Ontario were found to have drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol in their system. That’s quite an appalling statistic. Bill 31, Making Ontario’s Roads Safer Act, also deals with drinking-and-driving fatalities, which represent nearly one quarter of all fatalities in 2011. From 2008 to 2012, an average of 14% of convicted alcohol-impaired drivers were repeat offenders.

If current collision trends continue, fatalities from distracted driving may actually exceed those from drinking and driving by 2016. Who would have predicted that a dozen years ago?

In 2011, pedestrians constituted approximately one in five motor-vehicle-related fatalities, and it’s always very sad when that happens. Bill 31 will help our government address some of these challenges and improve road safety.

Just to provide some context on how we got to this point in time: This bill happens to be a combination of two government bills that were introduced in the last Parliament but died on the order paper when the opposition forced an election in May. The two previous bills were called Bill 34 and Bill 189, and both bills saw significant debate in the last session. For Bill 34, during second reading debate, 13 MPPs from all parties spoke to the bill for over three hours. For Bill 173, during second reading debate, nine separate MPPs from all parties debated the bill for over two hours.

Further, this bill incorporates four previous private members’ bills from all three parties:

—Bill 116, sponsored by the government member from Scarborough–Rouge River, relating to increasing fines and applying demerit points for distracted driving;

—Bill 137, sponsored by my friend the official opposition member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, relating to constructing cycling paths on King’s highways;

—Bill 38, sponsored by the official opposition member from Simcoe North, relating to increased safety for roadside emergency vehicles;

—Bill 74, sponsored by the third party member from Parkdale–High Park, relating to cycling safety and passing.

In the current Parliament that we’re in now, the bill has seen almost 14 hours of debate, and according to my count, we’ve had some 68 MPPs from all parties speak to the bill. That’s actually quite unusual unless there’s a filibuster going on, and I don’t think there is in this particular case.

Listening to the debate, it has been clear that the majority of this House supports the bill. Sometimes there are contentious bills where there’s a significant division taking place. We’ve had supportive comments from people from all parties, and I’ve enjoyed hearing from the various members who have spoken to the House. There has been a good cross-section, urban and rural. We’ve had people from the north, the south, the east and the west; people with specific issues they wish to see addressed, and I’ve been pleased to see this in this debate. I think it has been a fulsome debate in that regard.

It’s time that this bill is put to a vote for second reading and, hopefully, referred to committee where the real work takes place. We know that many of the provisions in this bill could actually affect something happening very soon, and so we want to ensure that the implementation is as quick as possible, although we want to go through second reading, of course, which we are at the present time.

Getting to committee—I think the great advantage of committee that I’ve seen in my experience in this House is people and organizations tend to make representations on the bill.

Some specifics: Members of the government and opposition have an opportunity to put forward amendments to the legislation, and I think that opportunity is very good.

You won’t believe this, but there have been previous governments, of course, that didn’t even allow some bills to go to committee. I’m trying to remember whether the social contract ever went to committee or not; I don’t think it did. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong in that regard.

Certainly, the party right across from us was well known for not wanting fulsome debate on a lot of issues.

There has been fulsome debate on this, and I think it has been valuable debate. I don’t want to downgrade it at all; I think it has been very, very helpful to all of us.

In committee, members of all parties will hear from all stakeholders who have an interest in that bill, and I think that’s good.

In committee, members will have an opportunity to move amendments to strengthen the bill or to change and alter it in some way. I think that’s very positive.

At the same time, the House can move on to debate substantive matters. There are other matters coming before the House, some which are more contentious, by the way, than this, where there’s disagreement.

There are a number of pieces of important legislation already introduced which the government would like to debate and see go through the legislative process:

—Bill 6, Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act;

—Bill 9, Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act;

—Bill 37, Invasive Species Act;

—Bill 40, Agriculture Insurance Act;

—Bill 45, Making Healthier Choices Act;

—Bill 49, Ontario Immigration Act;

—Bill 52, Protection of Public Participation Act; and

—Bill 56, Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act.

Mr. Speaker, we’d like to spend time debating some of the other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but of course that’s not possible if we continue simply to debate this bill on and on and on, even though we’ve had, as I say, some excellent speeches made by members from all parts of the House who have brought different points of view—even though there is general agreement—and have identified what they think could be areas of improvement. I think that’s been very good.

Now I have to make reference to my good friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke who—he got distracted a bit, I know, and you allowed him to wander a bit, but you called him back into the realm where he should be. I was wondering why he mentioned ROMA, for instance; why we didn’t hear any questions yesterday about the issues that you would hear at ROMA. None of the opposition members asked those questions.

Interjection: I did.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Now, over here we did, but we didn’t really have those kinds of issues coming forward. They were busy with other things happening. So I’m going to be listening carefully in question period today to determine whether we’re going to get questions that the people at ROMA are asking many of the MPPs who are gathering there.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, we could debate this bill forever. We could go on and on, even though we’ve heard from all the members I’ve mentioned, and had all that debate time. But I think we have to also deal with other pieces of legislation. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Given the duration of the debate to this point and the number of members who have been able to participate, I’m going to allow the motion.

Mr. Bradley has moved that the question now be put. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I deem the motion carried.

Mr. Del Duca has moved second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend Highway 407 East Act, 2012 and the Highway Traffic Act in respect of various matters and to make a consequential amendment to the Provincial Offences Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

As a result, this motion will be deferred until after question period.

Second reading vote deferred.

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 4, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

An Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario), 1996 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 40, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte (Ontario) et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): When this bill was last before the House, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane had completed his remarks.

Further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: Bill 40 I’m sure is

an act that is very dear to the Speaker, given that he comes from an incredibly rich agricultural area in this province, Chatham-Kent, which is known for an incredible production of soy beans and many, many other products that feed the whole province, if not the country.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that farmers request is some kind of stability, because of the precarious nature of the agricultural industry given weather, variable markets etc. I think I heard just recently that the number one cash crop in Ontario is now soybeans. It has overtaken corn, in my understanding. This is a relatively new product that is very, very popular with consumers all over Ontario and all over Canada.

But this Bill 40, what it does is cover losses and yield reductions caused by insured perils. Producers can choose the type and level of coverage that best meets their needs. It gives them a choice in terms of what kind of coverage they can get. In Ontario, production insurance is delivered by Agricorp, a crown agency of the province of Ontario. In 2013, there were more than 14,000 customers, representing five million acres and $2.9 billion in liabilities insured under the production insurance program. This present insurance program covers grains and oilseeds.

Just to let you know, Mr. Speaker, everyone wants to speak on this. I was negligent in not mentioning that. I’m going to be sharing my time with the member from Kingston and the Islands, the minister responsible for seniors and the member from Scarborough–Agincourt. They all want to share in the discussion.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, that’s what it is. You communist, you.

Mr. Mike Colle: At heart, I’m really a socialist.

It covers tree fruits and grapes, which are very, very susceptible to changes in weather etc., processing vegetables, fresh market vegetables, specialty crops and forage. I’m not too sure what forage is; maybe one of the other members could follow up with that. This bill basically enhances production crop insurance. It is also in partnership with the federal government, and it’s something that is offered all over the world for farmers.

This act will develop a new production insurance plan, with the following pieces that will occur: Operationally, it will develop a plan including working with stakeholders; third-party certification by an actuary—you know, just checking on it; federal participation ensuring compliance with national regulations, and it will be approved by the Treasury Board; and regulatory changes—the approval of minister’s regulations, adding the product to the list of eligible agricultural products.

This is something that will be of great importance to our agricultural community, it will be of great relevance to hard-working people in rural Ontario who depend on agriculture for their livelihood and it is an incredibly important part of ensuring that there is stability in the agricultural sector.

Those of us who live in cities sometimes don’t pay enough attention to where our food comes from and the amount of work that it takes to plant, grow, harvest and bring food products, agricultural products, to market. The average city person goes to the corner store, Loblaws, No Frills or whatever—Whole Foods if they’ve got money—and they buy it off the shelf. They pick up their fresh products, and you hope that when people—one of my pet peeves has always been when people buy imported food products when they can get tastier, safer Ontario agricultural products.

It’s just incredible to see that people will choose tomatoes from Mexico when we have year-round tomatoes grown in Ontario, whether they’re grown in the world’s tomato capital—I know the member from Beaches–East York understands the importance of Leamington, the tomato capital of the world. The best tomatoes grown anywhere in the world are in Leamington. So when you go buy tomatoes at your T&T grocery store in Toronto, ask for Leamington tomatoes.

By asking for and eating Leamington tomatoes, you’re not only ensuring that you’re getting safe Ontario products, but you’re keeping the tomato farmers and growers in Leamington working. That’s why when you shop for food products, you are supporting local farmers and the local agricultural industry. This is critically important not just to buy the cheapest thing, but to buy something that is made in Ontario.

An example I always use—Mr. Speaker, you know it very well—is garlic. I see people going into the local grocery store, and they are buying garlic from China because it’s cheap. You can get, I think, four of those garlic buds for 99 cents. But they don’t know where that garlic came from. Was there contamination in that soil in China? Were there any safeguards where that garlic was grown? No, but they say, “Oh, it’s just garlic.

I’m just buying the cheap Chinese garlic.” That is a mistake, because, first of all, if you really appreciate good food, you will appreciate the value in the Ontario product, and you will buy the garlic grown here in Ontario. It may be a little bit more expensive, but how much garlic are you going to use that you’re going to have to buy the cheap 99-cent garlic? Buy the garlic grown locally, it tastes better. It’s real garlic. It’s not bleached. People say, “Well, that’s a little example. Big deal.” No, it’s symbolic of us who consume food products to think of the Ontario product. They taste better.

Ontario corn—you know, Mr. Speaker, when you get that local Ontario corn, it tastes like honey; it’s so sweet. You don’t have to put butter or salt or anything on it; it’s wonderful corn that we grow here in Ontario.

Whether it’s tomatoes, corn, soy or another product which is really growing in importance in Ontario is lentils. We are one of North America’s largest producers of lentils. People say, “Well, it’s a lentil.” Lentils are a staple of many, many diets now. Lentils are everywhere. There is a whole agricultural industry that is now involved in providing lentils for the Ontario consumer.

So this bill essentially gives protection to Ontario farmers—a bit more insurance stability. It’s a good bill that connects this Legislature with the hard-working people who are just looking for a bit of insurance as they undertake their important work growing our food.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m passing the baton over to the member from the great agricultural area of Kingston and the Islands, where they grow—what do they grow there? I don’t know. Can you tell us what they grow locally in Kingston and the Islands?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Kingston and the Islands.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you to my colleague from Eglinton–Lawrence for his words.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in this House in support of Bill 40, because I know that the amazing farmers in my riding of Kingston and the Islands and the rural regions surrounding my riding will benefit from this bill.

I believe that Ontario must work with agri-food producers to better manage risk through an expansion in the scope of production insurance. In helping producers deal with potentially devastating natural events beyond their control, they will be better equipped to innovate, adapt and grow the sector.

It is hard to deny that extreme weather conditions have become part of the new norm. Ice storms, early frosts, late frosts, severe flooding, extended droughts, destructive winds, microbursts and other events have caused millions of dollars in damage and with ever-increasing frequency, it would seem.

As the farmers in Kingston and the Islands know—and all farmers, in fact, as well as climate scientists—long-term weather effects are rarely straightforward and predictable. Warmer, longer growing seasons can be advantageous in some sectors like soy, corn, grapes, forages and horticultural crops. Potential increases in productivity, however, are all too easily offset by unpredictable negative scenarios. For example, the trend for warmer winters is already encouraging the spread of damaging invasive species, especially insect pests and fungal diseases.

Longer, hotter summers lower the natural immunity of livestock, while extreme weather events and flooding can increase the spread of infectious disease.

In 60 years, average annual temperatures in Ontario have increased by 1.4 degrees Celsius, and by 2050 we are looking at a 2.5- to 3.7-degree increase. This will increase evaporation rates enough to cause more extended droughts in the future. While overall precipitation rates are not expected to change much, more intense rain is predicted, and we are now all too familiar with microbursts and their sometimes devastating effects. As a matter of fact, in my home in Kingston and the Islands, which we’ve had in the family for roughly 60 years, we had a flash flood a few years ago for the first time.

Our basement, in one hour, filled up with three inches of rain. And while I could fully appreciate the anguish of our farmers as the heavens poured and the water rose, I did not have an entire year’s worth of crops to worry about. I’m pleased that the Ontario government is working towards mitigation and adaption measures that reduce the magnitude of climate change and our vulnerability to it.

The threat of invasive species is another significant consideration. They compete with native species for food and habitat, they cost the Ontario economy tens of millions of dollars each year and put jobs in fisheries, forestry, agriculture and tourism at risk. Our recently introduced legislation on invasive species will work well with Bill 40.

A third risk for the agri-food sector is the highly volatile and unpredictable nature of worldwide agricultural commodity markets, usually in response to positive or negative climactic changes everywhere.

In short, Bill 40 expands the scope of production insurance to help farmers cope with yield losses due to weather, pests and disease, and it will apply to more agricultural commodities. Currently, Ontario’s inability to offer insurance for commodities beyond crops and perennials puts pressure on the province to respond with ad hoc compensation when producers without production insurance experience significant loss or shortfall. We’ve seen these ad hoc programs cost the province millions of dollars in a single year, and they are much more costly than production insurance.

Furthermore, producers can choose the type and level of coverage to meet their needs. Premiums are designed to be affordable and cost-shared between producers and the federal and provincial governments, encouraging best practices. Production insurance covers crop losses based on specific weather perils and is designed and delivered like insurance.

Approval of this legislation will align the province with the rest of Canada. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and PEI all have bee mortality plans. Manitoba is planning on introducing a pilot plan for hog mortality insurance. Beyond our borders, most developed countries already offer subsidized production insurance. Ontario’s agricultural sector is a major economic driver with huge potential.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we all know that farmers in the agri-food industry are actually extremely good at adapting to change. They always have been. But I think all of us can agree that we need solid, dependable risk management programs that mitigate for factors beyond their control and expand the scope of crop insurance.

We need to support farmers to do what they do best: innovate, create jobs and feed people. Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member from Kingston and the Islands. I now recognize the minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Wow. Speaker, thank you so much for the five minutes or so. We don’t get too many chances to speak in the House. It is such a wonderful opportunity to have, to say a few words, especially on Bill 40.

Ontario, I have to say, with the support of Bill 40, is much committed to providing support and help to the agri-food partners in their management of risk—especially this particular week as we welcome to Toronto OGRA and ROMA people from throughout Ontario. They have reminded us of the role they play in the province of Ontario as the agricultural people who bring food to our homes and our stores.

How is the Ontario agricultural sector doing? I have to say that we know, but listening to the people yesterday, it is vibrant and very strong, and they need all the support they can get from their government.

In 2013 alone, Ontario generated some $12.1 billion in farm cash receipts, or about 22% of Canada’s total farm cash receipts. This is an increase of some $2 billion compared to 2008 farm cash receipts. However, as you know, Speaker—you come from one of the areas that is so wonderful. My colleague here says that the San Marzano tomatoes are the best ones to make spaghetti sauce with. Indeed, you come from the particular area of our province where they produce the best tomatoes. Given the increase, we have to admit that the market is very volatile. It fluctuates.

That is why it’s so important that the government has in place a good, strong program of assistance when our producers, our farmers, have difficulties.

This would give us the ability to offer production insurance to more agricultural commodities, and it’s important in helping producers manage the multitude of risks that they face every day. I think it’s the responsibility of the government. I think every member of the House would agree that it’s the right thing to do.

Production insurance is currently available for almost 90 commercially grown crops, which include grains and oilseeds, tree fruits and grapes, processing vegetables, fresh market vegetables, specialty crops and forage—and it’s not limited to those. As we see, and I don’t have the time to go into the various details, it includes livestock, beekeepers—bees, if you will, Speaker—because everything is important to the agri-food that we produce in Ontario.

Are we the only ones? No, we are not the only ones. We are not the first, I have to say, regrettably, but all other provinces have the authority to offer production insurance plans for agricultural products beyond crops and perennial plants as well. So it’s got very wide coverage when it comes to helping farmers in Ontario. Provinces such as Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec and PEI also have bee mortality plans in place, while Manitoba is planning to introduce a pilot plan for hog mortality insurance in the near future. Anything we can do to really assist our producers would go a long way in helping ourselves.

We heard yesterday from a young lady about an innovative way of producing more, better and cheaper crops in Ontario. We have to listen, Speaker, because we have to encourage our young people as well. As we age—and I don’t have to tell you, Speaker; I’ll probably be speaking later on about how we are aging—it’s important that we provide these necessities, this help to our young people.

Farming is wonderful. I come from a farm home, if you will, back in my other life and I know how wonderful it is. I think that we have to support Bill 40 to make the amendments and provide the necessary insurance coverage for our farmers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments? The member from Kawartha—

Ms. Laurie Scott: Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes—

Ms. Laurie Scott: Brock. That’s okay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: We can’t forget Brock because it’s also a fine agricultural community.

Today I’m pleased to rise to make comments on the members from—let me see—Eglinton–Lawrence, Kingston and the Islands and the minister for seniors’ affairs. That’s quite a few people, in the 20-minute timeline that they had, who wanted to speak on the bill today, which is the Agriculture Insurance Act. It’s about expanding the scope of what’s covered for crop insurance. There’s been a lot of talk in the news about neonicotinoids that most of the farm groups, especially the grains and oilseeds sector, are concerned about.

We want regulations based on science, so we want to make sure the government takes its time and makes sure that we have proper regulations and legislation that go along and help our farmers, protect our farmers and protect the environment. We’re asking for very good science before final decisions are made on that matter.

There was a lot of mention about garlic farming from the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. I can say you could buy lots of garlic from my area of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. In fact, Haliburton itself is a great growing area, and that’s part of the Canadian Shield. It’s pretty remarkable that that can happen, but there are a lot of great garlic farmers out there. I want to give them a shout-out.

With the crop insurance, I think what we heard a lot, especially in the last election, was that the program that exists now—they don’t want changes to the programs as in less things taken away from the programs that exist now for crop insurance. They want a dedicated fund, so that the monies they’re paying in now were to be in a dedicated fund for insurance,

whereas now it just goes into general revenue.

There’s much more to be said on this bill, and I do believe I will have an opportunity later in the week.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m pleased to stand and speak on behalf of my constituents of London–Fanshawe on Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act.

Now, in London–Fanshawe, in the London area, there’s not a lot of farmers and agriculture, but in the surrounding area it’s huge. It’s a huge industry that we have. Strathroy, Stratford, St. Marys—there’s lots of farming, so it’s extremely important that we support our farmers with the Crop Insurance Act because we know that if we don’t have food sustaining us we’re going to be in a situation where we’re going to have a crisis on our hands.

Making sure that our farmers have the right kind of insurance so that they can thrive—I was talking to my colleague from Bramalea–Gore–Malton about how weather can affect crop insurance. It can be devastating to a farmer and a family.

I was with the bee farmers of Ontario recently. They had their AGM out in Toronto. I spoke to a few bee farmers. I talked to them about when they had that outbreak, the mad-cow disease, and how devastating that was for that industry.

Farming is a staple in our Canadian society and we appreciate all that farmers do, bringing food to our tables, to our communities and to our farmers’ markets. That’s a wonderful initiative we have in London: The Western Fair has a farmers’ market. And we want to support our local farmers. Part of that is also helping them to have the right crop insurance at the right time, so that when there is a need for them to recover those losses they have access and security to an insurance policy.

It’s good that we are looking at making those things better because we have to support our farmers in our community.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Arthur Potts: It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture on Bill 40, this very important act. What is really gratifying so far about this debate from my colleagues, the members from Eglinton–Lawrence, Kingston and the Islands and the minister for seniors, is that you’re getting representation from three urban members who speak quite eloquently of the importance and the belief that we have on how important the farming community is in Ontario.

All three members had a chance to show that they care about farmers in rural communities, that they care about the agricultural products that we eat, and want very much to make sure, moving forward, that Ontario has the tools necessary to assist our farmers in making sure that they can prosper.

What this act, of course, does is it expands protections on the insurance act to livestock from what was before just crop insurance. That’s why we’re renaming this act the Agricultural Products Insurance Act: so that we can move away from all oilseeds and crops and corn and all those other 90 or so items that are currently covered and also include livestock which are in peril from diseases and pests etc.

Most significantly, we’ve heard a lot about bees and the neonics situation. It’s very, very important that we can find an insurance instrument to move away from ad hoc programs in order to protect the bee farmers of Ontario. Likewise, we have the same situation with hog farmers; we have the same situation with fowl, with birds and such. It’s so important that we go forward this way.

As the PA to agriculture, I’m often asked: Why would the Premier make an urban member PA in agriculture? You know that we all have a very specialized expertise in a very narrow segment of the agri-food value chain in that we are consumers. It’s so important that we keep the consumer perspective, because consumers from large cities who enrich farmers, as farmers feed cities—it’s so important that we keep the consumer’s perspective in mind as we move forward. This act helps.

I’m glad to see my urban members supporting it, and the member from London–Fanshawe as well. This is an important bill for Ontario, and we appreciate all your support.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning on Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act, and deliver some comments on the insurance act. It is needed.

I come from a very, very rural and agricultural riding: Prince Edward–Hastings. Prince Edward county is now very well known for its wineries and that emerging industry in that area. There are some concerns that this legislation will address—the fact that this season alone there was what they refer to in that industry as a short crop because there was the long winter last year. I know we’re all saying this winter is going on way too long, as well, although it was a shorter start, of course. There was severe damage to the wine crop, which would be, of course, the grapes.

That makes an insurance product like this an absolute necessity. Hastings county is very well known for its beef—and Prince Edward, as well, for its beef and chicken farmers.

Any time we can ensure a bit more stability in our agriculture sector, I think that’s a good thing. Our caucus will be supporting this bill as well.

But one of the things that’s happening in the Ministry of Agriculture right now is this swift move on the neonicotinoids issue. It’s a huge concern for farmers and producers in my area because it’s not science-based. What it’s going to do is create a lot more loss when it comes to their harvest time. They’re not going to bring in as much because there’s going to be a lot more rot. There’s going to be a lot more loss of product, which is going to cost them money, which is going to drive up the cost of an insurance program like this as well.

I think what we need to do is make sure the decisions we’re making when it comes to neonics—neonicotinoids—are fact-based, science-based, and not rush into anything that’s going to be very damaging to our agriculture sector. There’s a balance there, and we have to find that balance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for his final comments.

Mr. Mike Colle: I want to thank all the members who spoke: Kingston and the Islands, the minister responsible for seniors, Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, London–Fanshawe, Beaches–East York and Prince Edward–Hastings. They spoke about the importance of this bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this bill is premium-based. Basically, the farmers pay a portion of the premiums, and then the federal and provincial governments also kick in money. It is a partnership to provide greater certainty and insurance for this very volatile industry, the agriculture industry.

In my opening remarks, I talked about lentils and garlic and tomatoes and everything, but also, as someone mentioned here—London–Fanshawe and, I think, Prince Edward–Hastings—is the importance of appreciating Ontario beef. People talk about Alberta beef. Well, Ontario beef is just as good or better. So ask for Ontario beef when you get that steak. Or pork—there is no better pork in the world than Ontario pork. So when you go to the grocery store, make sure you ask for Ontario pork. There’s no better pork in the world—tasty, safe Ontario pork.

Then there are other products which are very good in Ontario that not enough of us promote—Ontario lamb. Forget the New Zealand lamb. It’s old, it’s shipped, it doesn’t have the aroma. Buy local Ontario lamb. Ontario goat: You want a nice treat that’s different from your usual? Try a little bit of local Ontario goat.

Again, we’re trying to help our farmers with this very practical, pragmatic insurance program so that we can enjoy these safe, tasty, delicious Ontario products that keep us fed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since it is 10:15, the time for debate this morning has now expired.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): We will recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: On behalf of the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, Jim Wilson, I would like to introduce two councillors from New Tecumseth: Michael Beattie and Paul Whiteside. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

On behalf of myself, I have two councillors from Leeds–Grenville in the crowd. I’d like to introduce Jason Barlow, a councillor with the township of Elizabethtown-Kitley, and David LeSueur, a councillor with the city of Brockville. Welcome to Queen’s Park, gentlemen.

Hon. Michael Chan: It is really my great pleasure to introduce the people’s mayor from the great city of Markham, Mayor Frank Scarpitti. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Julia Munro: It’s with great pleasure that I’m able to introduce to the House today Mayor Margaret Quirk of Georgina and Mayor Virginia Hackson of East Gwillimbury. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mario Sergio: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House, sitting in the east members’ gallery, the president of York University, Dr. Shoukri, and also the president of Seneca College, David Agnew. I want to thank them and welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome some guests on behalf of my colleague the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London. We have Paul Ens, who is the warden of Elgin county and mayor of Bayham, and his wife, Mary Lee Ens, who is here as well; Councillor Tom Southwick from the municipality of Bayham and his wife, Eva Southwick; and the mayor of Dutton Dunwich, Cameron McWilliam, joining us in the Legislature here today.

I’d also like to welcome some municipal councillors from Prince Edward–Hastings. Veteran councillor from Stirling-Rawdon Jeremy Solmes is here, and a new councillor in Stirling-Rawdon, Dean Graff, and his lovely wife, Donna, are here as well. Welcome to Queen’s Park, folks.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to welcome to the House today Wayne Emmerson, regional chair and CEO of York region, along with Mayor Geoffrey Dawe, town of Aurora, and town of Newmarket mayor Tony Van Bynen, accompanied by Lina Bigioni, director of government relations for York region. Welcome all.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to welcome the family of page captain Niko Hoogeveen from Barrie: his mother, Dr. Kelly Emerson Hoogeveen; sister Nell Hoogeveen; grandmother Ann Hoogeveen; grandfather Harry Hoogeveen; aunt Dini Wagermans; and cousin Ingrid Wagermans. Welcome. He’s doing a great job.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome the newly elected mayor of the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, in the great region of York, Justin Altmann.

Mr. Michael Harris: Quickly, I’d like to welcome the folks here with CNIB today. I encourage everyone to attend their reception later on today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Oral Questions

Curriculum

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is to the Minister of Education. Would the minister please remind this House—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Interjection: Order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, that’s my job, although I appreciate the team effort. I am going to ask that the decorum be where it should be. It’s a serious question. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Would the minister please inform this House of the number of parents who currently have children in publicly funded Ontario elementary schools, and how many of these parents, last November, actually completed the online survey commissioned by your ministry regarding changes to the health and physical education curriculum?

Hon. Liz Sandals: This has been a really interesting situation, Speaker, because yesterday we had the interim leader and the PC education critic, the official spokespeople on the issue, saying that they actually welcomed our new health and physical education curriculum. And then we have the three leadership candidates, who seem to be totally in a different land.

Interjection: Answer the question.

Hon. Liz Sandals: No, I think you’d better see what people have been saying.

This is one of the leadership exchanges. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex said, “I’ve committed to stopping the sex ed agenda in its tracks. Christine ... I need you to join with me at caucus to stand up to Kathleen Wynne to stop the sex ed agenda once and for all.” That’s what he said. And—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Speaker, obviously there’s no answer there—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

I believe I just asked for decorum, and I expect it to be maintained.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’re making a joke out of this.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. I’ll take care of this.

Supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Minister, there are millions of parents in Ontario, and you refuse to hear from over 99% of them—not quite a consultative process.

This House should be reminded that on October 30, this minister said that even these opinions of these very few parents would likely not affect the content of her planned 2015 sex ed curriculum.

Minister, now that you have released this proposed curriculum, it is clear that thousands of parents have concerns. What are your plans for a true consultative process now that Ontario mums and dads are able to see for themselves what you have planned for their children?

Hon. Liz Sandals: And now the rest of the story that you’re all waiting for: The member from Whitby–Oshawa said in reply, “I’ve been very clear on my position on that, Monte. I stand with you.... there’s no question I stand in the same place that you do. Parents are the ones that should be deciding about sex ed and what their children should or shouldn’t be taught.... There’s no question I am against what they’re doing.”

As we speak, I presume Patrick Brown is outside.

It’s troubling that all three leadership candidates for the Progressive Conservative Party are in disagreement with the current caucus leadership and want to bury a new sex ed curriculum, a new health and physical education curriculum that will protect the health and safety of our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Speaker, back to the minister: In recent days, the only concession you’ve been willing to make to concerned parents—that is, to those parents who do not share your view of how their children should be raised—has been to point out that the Education Act gives parents the right to withdraw their child from particular lessons; in other words, Minister, a highly selective opt-out.

Minister, are you prepared to extend this opt-out principle to local schools? For example, if a local school council votes to opt out of your new sex ed curriculum, would you honour this request of a school council?

Hon. Liz Sandals: And I assume if he was Premier you could vote to opt out of teaching about evolution, too.

Actually—

Interjections.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I hope the press gallery heard what the member, Mr. Nicholls, said: that opting out of evolution would actually be a good idea for the Ontario curriculum. I happen to disagree, as somebody who has a science background.

Let’s talk about parents. Let’s talk seriously, because we actually think that parents should be involved in the conversation. That’s why we’re creating materials for parents, so that parents can talk to their children about—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My second question is to the Premier. Premier, last year you tried to dodge the record of the McGuinty era by distancing yourself from Dalton’s team. These weren’t your people—“Nothing to do with me,” you said—but in recent weeks some of your people have found themselves in hot water. The Sudbury by-election has resulted in your deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, and one of your Liberal fundraisers, Gerry Lougheed Jr., having allegedly broken anti-bribery laws. The matter is now being referred to federal prosecutors and other police.

Premier, can you confirm for this House that you personally hired Pat Sorbara as your deputy chief of staff, and that you appointed Gerry Lougheed Jr. to serve as chair of the local police board?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve answered questions about the Sudbury by-election situation many times. I will say again that, yes, Pat Sorbara is a member of my staff. The police services board in Sudbury makes its own decisions. The fact is that I had decided by the end of November that Glenn Thibeault was the person who we wanted to have as our candidate in Sudbury, and there were subsequent conversations about keeping the past candidate involved.

But it’s interesting that the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex doesn’t want to talk about the fact that there is a protest going on outside about a sex ed curriculum that is going to protect children in this province, in every one of our publicly funded schools in Ontario. He doesn’t want to talk about that, because he knows, I think, in his heart that it is the right thing to do. We need to update that curriculum.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Again to the Premier: I’m certain the hard-working officers of the OPP are doing their best as they continue this and all of the investigations into your office. I’m certain they’ll find all the evidence they can, but with Ms. Sorbara and Mr. Lougheed Jr. still working in Liberal offices and a Premier who insists she believes that they did nothing wrong, how can the people of Ontario be sure that your office won’t double-delete any evidence?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I have answered the questions. I have said that we are going to co-operate with the authorities. Of course we will co-operate with the authorities. I have been very clear all along that the decision had been made. I had decided by the end of November that Glenn Thibeault was the person who we wanted to have—who I wanted to have—as our candidate in Sudbury. The conversations that happened subsequently were about keeping the past candidate involved.

But you know, I heard the member from St. Catharines talking about the ROMA conference. There are people who are here today meeting in downtown Toronto to talk about issues that I would have thought would have been very important to the member for Lambton–Kent, because the issues around investments in infrastructure—the Ontario Good Roads Association members are very concerned about those investments in all of the communities around the province. That’s the work that we are focused on doing—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Well, Premier, it doesn’t end there: Ornge, gas plants, deleted hard drives, the Sudbury by-election, and a prominent member of your own 2013 transition team—your former Deputy Minister of Education—has now admitted to three criminal charges.

Premier, in light of the criminal conduct of your own hand-picked advisers, how would you rate the ethical deficiencies of your government compared, say, to the scandals that drove your predecessor out of office: a higher standard of ethics than we got under Dalton McGuinty or, perhaps, just as bad?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, that was a pretty broad-ranging question. Let me just quote back to the member something that he said yesterday. He said that it’s not the Premier of Ontario’s job, “especially Kathleen Wynne,” to tell parents what is age-appropriate for their children. Mr. Speaker, let me just ask the member opposite: What is it that especially disqualifies me for the job that I’m doing? Is it that I’m a woman? Is it that I’m a mother? Is it that I have a master’s of education? Is it that I was a school council chair? Is it that I was the Minister of Education?

What is it exactly that the member opposite thinks disqualifies me from doing the job that I’m doing? What is that?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Order. I’m still hoping that my request for decorum is maintained.

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for Premier. On December 12, Pat Sorbara said on tape to Andrew Olivier, “You’ve been asked directly by the leader and the Premier to make a decision to allow Glenn to have the opportunity to have, you know, basically, the opportunity uncontested.”

Is that true?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, again, I have answered these questions many, many times. I had decided by the end of November that Glenn Thibeault was the person who I wanted to have as our candidate in Sudbury. It was clear to me that he was going to be a strong voice for Sudbury and that he was the best candidate for us in that by-election. The conversations that took place were about keeping the past candidate involved.

Would it have been great if the past candidate had wanted to work with us and had wanted to stay as part of the team? Absolutely. That would have been terrific. But the conversations that were had with the past candidate were about keeping him involved. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are many ways of being involved in the political life of a party beyond being a candidate, and that’s what those conversations were about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On December 11, Gerry Lougheed said on tape to Andrew Olivier, “The Premier up to now has always said to me she’s in favour of a nomination race. So I want to make that really clear, she’s never said to me, ‘I want to appoint him.’”

Is that true?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement last Friday, and I talked about the way candidates become candidates in general elections or by-elections. I said my preference is for nomination races. I had been through a nomination race in the 1990s that was a very difficult experience. I think that when it’s possible to have a local nomination race, that’s a good thing to do.

But in those circumstances where that’s not possible, where that’s not going to happen, and where a decision has been made according to the constitution of the party, as was the case in the Sudbury by-election, then I think the honest thing to do is to make it clear that that decision has been made, that a candidate has been chosen, rather than a situation like in Scarborough–Guildwood, with Adam Giambrone, where it wasn’t clear at all. It wasn’t a real nomination race, and it had to be controlled from the centre.

I don’t think that’s the way it should be done. I think we should be up front about what’s going on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On December 20, according to the police transcript, Detective Constable Erin Thomas asked Mr. Olivier, “Okay, and so from that conversation, were you still unsure as to whether they might appoint somebody or whether they were gonna go through with the open nomination?”

Andrew Olivier said, “That’s what Pat had stated.”

Is that true?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I will say again that by the end of November, I had made a decision that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate in Sudbury.

The conversations that took place were about keeping the past candidate involved. That’s why those conversations took place. It’s why I had a conversation with Andrew Olivier, and I suggested some ways he might be involved. But I had made a decision that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier said that she told Andrew Olivier she would appoint her candidate, but on December 20, Detective Constable Erin Thomas asked—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Mr. Mike Colle: What about Giambrone?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): What about quiet?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t appreciate somebody counselling to make more noise.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On December 20, Detective Constable Erin Thomas asked Mr. Olivier, “So after you’d spoken with Pat Sorbara on the phone, at that time did you know whether or not there would be an open nomination, whether there would be other people participating in it?” And Andrew Olivier said, “No.”

If the Premier claims she was so clear, why did Andrew Olivier at that time think that no decision had yet been made?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I had a conversation with Andrew Olivier before the conversation that he had with Pat Sorbara. I made it clear to him that I had decided that Glenn Thibeault was going to be the candidate. The fact is that the conversations that took place after that were about keeping the young man involved in the party. That is exactly what happened, and I had made the decision that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate by the end of November.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier claims that she decided to appoint Glenn Thibeault in November. She didn’t alert the media, and she didn’t tell me or the interim leader of the PCs. I get that. I get that 100%. But she apparently didn’t tell her campaign director/deputy chief of staff, she didn’t tell her Liberal kingmaker in the local community, and she didn’t tell Andrew Olivier. All the evidence and all the tapes show that the Premier’s office was offering Andrew Olivier a job so that the Premier’s candidate could have his nomination uncontested. The Premier says that never happened. All the evidence says that the Premier’s version is not true.

Is the Premier’s story a little bit hard to believe, Speaker? I think so. Does the Premier have any evidence whatsoever to back up her story?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party is exactly right. When I made the decision, after meeting with Glenn Thibeault in my home, that he was the best person to be the candidate, much as I have a deep respect for the media, I didn’t go to the media that day. There was a process that needed to unfold. Glenn Thibeault was actually changing the party that he was going to be affiliated with; that was a difficult decision for him to make. He needed to work with his family and make sure that all of those pieces were in place.

I had made the decision by the end of November. There were conversations to try to keep a young man, who obviously would be going through a difficult transition—it’s a difficult thing when the leader decides that a different person is going to be the candidate than the past candidate. That was a difficult thing and we wanted to keep him involved. That’s why those conversations took place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality remains that there’s a mountain of evidence showing that Andrew Olivier was offered a job so the Premier wouldn’t have to appoint her hand-picked candidate. There are police interviews and call recordings that any member of the public can hear.

So my question remains: Does the Premier have any evidence at all to back up her story?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite and a number of the members have asked this same question in 16, 20, 25 different ways, but I’m going to answer it in exactly the same way. The fact is that I made a decision by the end of November that Glenn Thibeault was the best candidate for us in the Sudbury by-election. The conversations that took place after that were about keeping the past candidate involved. That’s the reality; that’s what those conversations were about. And we have in Glenn Thibeault a strong voice for Sudbury.

I believe that I was right in the assessment that Glenn Thibeault is the best representative that Sudbury could have at this moment. We are very happy to have him in our caucus and we know that he’s going to be working very hard for the people of Sudbury.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. When the Lieutenant Governor read the speech from the throne he told us that your government “will put evidence before ideology and choose partnership over partisanship.”

Premier, your government is doing neither. As the evidence mounts against you, your deputy chief of staff, and your Liberal operative, you have resorted to ideological and partisan attacks.

Premier, last Friday, I launched an online petition that calls for you to demonstrate integrity. It requests that you demand the resignation of Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed Jr. until the allegations are resolved. When will you demonstrate the integrity that’s expected from the office of Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said yesterday, I know the Premier very well. I have seen her wrestle with difficult decisions. I can assure you—it’s not just my opinion, but it’s the opinion of every person who has ever worked with our Premier—that integrity is the number one characteristic she has.

These attacks on her character are unfounded, and they know it. They know it. This is a woman who makes thoughtful, principle-driven decisions. She wrestles with issues. She thinks hard about what is the right way to go forward.

The members opposite have given her lots of advice on what to do. The judgment of the Premier—what she feels is right, in her heart—is something that I have enormous respect for. This is a woman we are blessed to have leading our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is back to the Premier, Speaker. Premier, you said you’d do politics differently. Your throne speech said that you would be open and transparent but I guess that doesn’t mean you’ll have open and transparent nominations. The same throne speech said decisions will be “made responsibly, openly and in the best interests of Ontarians.”

I don’t believe it was responsible and open to have Pat Sorbara offer Andrew Olivier jobs or appointments to step aside. Premier, do you believe it was in the best interests of Ontarians to have your deputy chief of staff allegedly bribe a candidate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I really think that these questions have been asked and asked and asked, and they have been answered consistently and thoughtfully. They’re not getting the answers they want, Speaker, but they’re getting the right answers.

We have been back six days. We’ve had 72 questions—that was at the beginning of question period, and I think we’re up to 78 questions—and the only questions you’re asking, with the remarkable exception of the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex—these are the only questions you’re asking.

Why aren’t you asking about transit? Why aren’t you asking about our economy? Why aren’t you asking about jobs? Why aren’t you asking about health care? Why aren’t you asking about kids with disabilities? Why are you focusing on something that you know is actually under investigation?

The Premier has spoken. It’s time you asked real questions.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: This question is coming to the Premier, Speaker. The Premier doesn’t seem to be taking bribery allegations very seriously, so let’s look at what the people outside the Legislature are saying.

I’m going to quote from the Toronto Star: “Premier Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal Party are digging themselves deeper into” a “political mess. Ontarians will rightly be shocked by allegations from Elections Ontario that two party operatives—including her deputy chief of staff—appear to have broken the law. Under these circumstances, both should step aside while” the police investigation is ongoing. That’s what the Toronto Star had to say.

Is the Premier prepared to fire Gerry Lougheed and Pat Sorbara?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said earlier, the Premier listens to advice and then she has a conversation with her soul and lands on the right way forward, the principled way forward.

I think it’s a bit ironic—or puzzling, maybe I should say—that the members opposite are pretending that they don’t look after their past candidates, they don’t try to keep their past candidates involved. I think it’s a pretty well-established tradition that people actually might—

Mr. John Yakabuski: We do it within the bounds of the law—the bounds of the law.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: You were so desperate for something.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, please come to order—and also the Minister of the Environment.

Please carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There are many examples of this. Let’s go back to 1998 when “veteran MPP Floyd Laughren”—I’m quoting now from the Hamilton Spectator—“the former New Democrat finance minister, is calling it quits to accept a $120,000-a-year government appointment.” Now, who was energy minister at that time? None other than the interim leader of—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, a court would never take what is in a person’s soul as evidence in any court case. But nonetheless it’s not just the Toronto Star. The Toronto Sun’s editorial has had this to say: “Sorbara is now the subject of two active, ongoing investigations into”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No extra comments.

Please finish.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: “Sorbara is now the subject of two active, ongoing investigations into the Sudbury by-election.... How can she possibly continue as Wynne’s deputy chief of staff and campaign director?”

Is the Premier going to start listening to the voices outside this Legislature and take responsibility as Premier and do the right thing and ask Pat Sorbara and Mr. Lougheed to step aside?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have a feeling that we just saw history being made, because I don’t think the NDP has ever before quoted a Toronto Sun editorial. If they’re taking advice from the Toronto Sun, it’s a new day in Ontario.

I think it’s important to go back to why the Premier would have chosen Glenn Thibeault to be the Liberal Party candidate in the election. Who is this man, Glenn Thibeault? I’m sure the member from Nickel Belt knows quite well that he is a man of enormous integrity. He is a man who has dedicated his life to improving the lives of the most vulnerable people in Sudbury, whether it’s his work at the United Way, whether it’s his work with Big Brothers Big Sisters, whether it’s his coaching team. He has been engaged in helping improve the lives of people with developmental disabilities and kids with autism. He is a very fine man, and why wouldn’t—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

Senior citizens

Minister, seniors play an active and important role in our province’s communities and economy. In my own riding of Trinity–Spadina we have a considerable and active senior population which continues to impact the community in many positive ways. As we know, there are also various challenges and opportunities associated with growing older, and seniors have a number of distinct needs our province is working to address.

January marks the two-year anniversary of Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors. Recently the minister visited my riding of Trinity–Spadina and celebrated this anniversary and provided an important update on the action plan. This plan is more than a framework; it’s a promise to our seniors and their families.

Could the minister please elaborate on Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors and inform the House of the initiatives our government is taking to improve—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister responsible for seniors’ affairs.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Indeed, the member from Trinity–Spadina has a good question. He’s not only very supportive, but a very dedicated and committed advocate for seniors in his riding and throughout our province.

He’s quite right. We are having a very strong shift in our demographics. Ontarians are living longer and we’re getting more seniors than ever before. We have a huge shift indeed in our demographic. Presently we have over two million people over the age of 65. We’re going to have 4.2 million in about 20 years. By 2016-17 we are going to have more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 14. Myself, as minister, and the government, have said we have to face the challenges, so we have in place Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors.

The latest one, which the member has mentioned, is the Seniors Community Grant Program. In the first year of operation we reached out to 179 projects—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I would like to thank the minister for the response. It’s clear that our government is committed to achieving a higher quality of life for our seniors. I am delighted to say that these specific programs have resonated very well in my riding.

In my riding, a remarkable project at the Harbourfront Community Centre, titled the Urban Grannies Garden Project, received $10,000 of funding from the Seniors Community Grant Program. This gardening program fosters a sense of belonging and acceptance among seniors in Trinity–Spadina, enabling them to partner up with youth while addressing food safety and community collaboration. The youth are delighted to have learned and developed these new skills, and the seniors are more socially engaged.

I was pleased to have the minister join me in my riding to see first-hand the great work this senior group is doing in the riding and how the funding is being put to use. Can the minister provide us with additional information on initiatives our government has created to help improve the lives of seniors in this province?

Interjection: Good question.

Hon. Mario Sergio: The member from Trinity–Spadina did indeed come up with a good question.

We all know that because of the challenges that we are facing with this increasing number of seniors, we had to come up quickly with the Ontario seniors plan, which is a very comprehensive plan incorporating the age-friendly community planning program, the Community Transportation Pilot Grant Program and the community paramedicine program.

We have the Ontario Elderly Persons Centres. Last week, we made some changes by increasing the number of languages in the Finding Your Way program. We now provide the information in Urdu, Arabic, Tagalog and Tamil. This is on top of another 16 languages to the guide to programs and services for seniors.

This is why we want to motivate our seniors. We want to make sure that our seniors are proud to live in Ontario, to grow in Ontario and age in the province of Ontario.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. We all—well, many of us here—know the rules: You don’t comment directly on the outcome of an ongoing investigation. Yet, Friday, while impugning and maligning members of this Legislature, the Premier couldn’t help herself from noting, with regard to the eventuality of the charges for her deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, that “On our review of the matter, we don’t expect that to happen.” Premier, thankfully for the people of Ontario, it is not your expectations we are relying on to determine guilt or innocence.

Premier, were your comments just completely inappropriate or were they, in fact, attempting to influence the outcome of an ongoing investigation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, my comments on Friday were an expression of my belief that we were dealing with allegations, that there was an investigation ongoing, and based on what I know about the situation, I’m not asking my staff member to step down. That’s what I was saying on Friday, and I was being very clear about the fact that we had made a decision about who the candidate was going to be in Sudbury and that there had been no offer of anything in return for an action and that the conversations that had taken place were about trying to keep a young man who had been a candidate involved in the party. That’s what the statement on Friday was about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Premier: Premier, your orchestrated strategy to change the channel is straight from the old Liberal handbook: how to stop at nothing to hold power. That’s why, despite your assurance that you wouldn’t drag individuals through the mud, you did exactly that with a drive-by blanket smear maligning our entire caucus. It’s also why the member from London North doubled down on your investigation speculation, indicating the allegations are baseless. Premier, an investigation is ongoing. It’s not up to you or your deputy to predetermine the outcome.

Premier, you told us you’d be different, yet you’re walking on the same scandal-ridden trail of deceit and diversion that followed Mr. McGuinty right out these doors. Is this what we can expect from a Wynne Liberal government, keeping you and your friends in power by buying off seats at any cost?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I’m listening carefully to all of the questions and answers and I’m not happy with that last part. But I’m not going to ask you to withdraw, other than to just indicate to you it will not be tolerated any further.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We know there’s an investigation going on. We are not playing Perry Mason on this side of the House. The 78 questions, if the Deputy Premier’s calculation is right, that have come from the other side are doing just that.

I was making a point on Friday when I stated the fact that there have been members from other parties who have come across to us and have talked to members in this caucus about the fact that they would be willing to step down from their seat in return for an appointment. That is a fact. That has happened. I didn’t name names because it wasn’t about individuals; it was about the reality that we said no. We said no, we’re not going to do that, even though those approaches had been made. That’s the point I was making. I made that point on Friday.

The member opposite has brought it up in a context that makes me repeat what I said, but I was saying it to make a point about the fact that we said no, we were not going to do that.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. It’s not just the Toronto Star; it’s not just the Toronto Sun. The Ottawa Citizen editorial board wrote this: “Using public appointments to reward loyal service is one thing. Dangling the possibility of appointments while trying to persuade someone to give up their candidacy is quite another.” And a column in the Globe and Mail says, “As it turns out, Ms. Wynne is not quite as different from Mr. McGuinty as she appeared.”

These quotes are not from question period. Will the Premier start listening?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let’s just be clear. I had made a decision by the end of November that Glenn Thibeault was the best person to be our candidate. There was no candidacy. There was no position that the past candidate held.

The reality is that we were working to try to keep this young man involved. He had been our candidate. He was not going to be our candidate again, and we were working to try to keep him involved. He didn’t have any position other than as a past candidate. So when I say that there was nothing offered in exchange for an action, that’s exactly the case, because he wasn’t in a position. He was a past candidate, and I had made a decision that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate, not Andrew Olivier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s not just the Star; it’s not just the Sun, the Citizen, the Globe and Mail. There is also the National Post: “One of the incongruities of elected politics is the cynical assumption that laws are made to be observed by others.... Ms. Wynne reflected this attitude in spades Friday.” And here’s what the Waterloo Record had to say: “Ontario’s governing Liberals make the law—but they are not above it.... Premier Kathleen Wynne seemed blind to this fact.”

The Premier is not just hearing from the opposition. She’s hearing from the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun, the Ottawa Citizen, the Globe and Mail, the National Post and the Waterloo Record. Everyone but the Premier knows the Liberals are on the wrong side of this issue.

Will the Premier finally do the right thing and admit some responsibility and fire Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, I have to say it’s getting a bit boring in here, I think. There are important questions facing this province and you’re not asking them.

It’s very clear that the Premier made a decision that Glenn Thibeault would be our candidate. It’s very clear that our party actually reached out and tried to have a conversation with a past candidate. If you actually listen to the tape, it’s abundantly clear that Andrew Olivier knew that he was not going to be the candidate from the very beginning of the conversation with Pat Sorbara.

Gerry Caplan, who is a good New Democrat, said, “Why we’re making this the biggest deal in the world is beyond me.” Well, I tell you, Speaker, it’s beyond me. When there are important issues facing the people of Ontario, why both opposition parties continue to focus on this is beyond me too.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, your ministry is pursuing a mandate of transformation for the services it offers people living with disabilities. This government has clearly chosen to make individuals with developmental disabilities a priority by making the significant investment of $810 million over three years in the developmental services sector.

Minister, you have said before that this government is working towards having people with disabilities fully included in the fabric of our communities and able to live as independently as possible, like Taylor Abbaspour of Barrie, who now has two jobs and is preparing to move into his own apartment.

Minister, can you please tell the House how your ministry is working towards this goal?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member for Barrie for the question. As the member said, our government is choosing to invest in Ontario’s most vulnerable people, and thousands of people are already benefiting from the budget investment.

Last fall, I shared with this House my ministry’s launch of the Developmental Services Employment and Modernization Fund. This fund is set to deliver $15 million over three years, and is part of the $810-million investment strategy. This fund is intended to support the ongoing transformation of the developmental services system into one that is more person-directed, collaborative and efficient, and that promotes greater inclusion and independence for individuals.

In this first round of funding, that was announced earlier this month, the government is supporting 38 projects around Ontario that were selected as best meeting the objectives of this fund.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

Mr. Han Dong: I can’t hear the question, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did say, “Supplementary.”

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister. This new employment and modernization fund is a strong example of the way that this government is using the innovative leaders in the developmental services sector to make a tangible difference for people with developmental disabilities and their families.

In my riding of Barrie, Simcoe Community Services is one of the 38 successful proposals of this new fund. This agency, supported by this government, has been doing great work for many years to support individuals in their daily life and seek better integration in their communities and economy. Now, with this additional project funding, CEO Marion Graves says that this agency will be able to expand their pool of prospective employers.

Minister, can you please elaborate on what other ways this fund will improve the lives of people across Ontario?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We’re moving the developmental services sector to a place that better integrates individuals in their community and economy, and transforms the way supports are offered to them.

First, it is clear that those with developmental disabilities are a very diverse group of individuals with varying interests and abilities, so customizing employment initiatives is very important to ensure a successful outcome. This means that agencies need to collaborate more closely to help transition individuals to employment opportunities in the community.

An excellent example of this type of initiative is LiveWorkPlay, in Ottawa, that I visited along with Minister Naqvi last Friday. We want to make municipal community programs more inclusive and develop a provincial centre of excellence on employment.

We are transforming the developmental services sector so that individuals are now living in the community and have every opportunity to work in their community.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. Premier, yesterday the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services said that your government would not interfere with the removal of Gerry Lougheed Jr. from the Greater Sudbury Police Services Board.

The minister said that under regulation 421/97, Members of Police Services Board—Code of Conduct, it is “up to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission ... to consider whether the code of conduct is being complied with or not.”

That’s true. But are you aware that

section 25 subsection (1) of the Police Services Act allows your minister to request the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to investigate, inquire into and report on the conduct of a member of the board?

Premier, through your minister: Will you request that independent body to investigate the inappropriate actions of Gerry Lougheed Jr.?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, I didn’t have the chance to congratulate our member Glenn Thibeault for a wonderful election in Sudbury, so I’m very pleased to. He ran a positive campaign, and the people of Sudbury have spoken and they have elected him.

On the question, Mr. Speaker, all police service board members appointed by the province or a municipal council are subject to the code of conduct under the Police Services Act. I understand that the Sudbury police services board has addressed this issue recently, and they have voted for Monsieur Lougheed to retain his position. It is important to note that, if a board member has breached the code of conduct, an investigation by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission may be conducted pursuant to

section 25 of the PSA.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: The police services board code of conduct,

section 14, subsection 1, states, “A board member whose conduct or performance is being investigated or inquired into by the commission under

section 25 of the act ... shall decline to exercise his or her duties as a member of the board for the duration of the investigation.” This is not an issue of political interference by the board. We have an open investigation by the OPP and a damning report by the Chief Electoral Officer. It’s time for you to request an independent investigation from the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, thus requiring Mr. Lougheed to step away from the board. I’m asking you, Premier and Minister: Will you ask for that investigation to take place?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, the Police Services Act does not give the minister the authority to remove a board member. It is important to note that, if a board member has breached the code of conduct, an investigation by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission may be conducted pursuant to

section 25 of the public service act. The OCPC would decide if a hearing into the matter is warranted. That’s the process. Anybody can report a case to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission. If the member wants to do it, it’s up to you, sir.

Élection partielle à Sudbury / By-election in Sudbury

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est très simple, et elle est pour la première ministre : qui a dit à M. Lougheed et à M me Sorbara d’offrir un emploi à M. Andrew Olivier?

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Merci beaucoup pour cette question. Je vais dire encore une fois que j’ai eu une conversation avec Andrew Olivier pour l’engager dans le parti. J’ai décidé que Glenn Thibeault était le meilleur candidat pour notre parti à Sudbury, et je suis très heureuse d’avoir M. Thibeault dans notre parti et notre gouvernement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Ce n’est pas par coïncidence que M. Lougheed et M me Sorbara ont tous les deux dit à Andrew Olivier qu’ils l’appelaient au nom de la première ministre. Ce n’est pas par coïncidence qu’ils ont tous les deux dit à M. Olivier qu’il pouvait avoir tout ce qu’il voulait en autant qu’il ne se présente pas comme candidat libéral. Ce n’est pas par coïncidence que ces trois personnes pensaient que la décision de nominer un candidat n’était pas encore prise.

Ma question est simple : qui prend ces décisions de dire à M. Lougheed et à M me Sorbara quoi faire?

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: J’ai décidé que Glenn Thibeault était le meilleur candidat pour notre élection à Sudbury. J’ai fait cette décision. J’ai dit que j’ai eu une conversation avec Andrew Olivier pour engager Andrew Olivier dans notre parti parce que je crois que c’est la responsabilité du leader d’un parti.

I have said this over and over again. I made the decision. We were working to engage Andrew Olivier. That’s what the conversations between Pat Sorbara and Andrew Olivier were about.

Invasive species

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Ontario’s biodiversity and natural heritage contribute substantial ecological and economic benefits to our province, yet invasive species threaten our province’s biodiversity and can have drastic impacts on our economy.

One species that is already established in Ontario, the zebra mussel, clogs the intake pipes of municipal water supplies and hydroelectric companies, and interferes with the overall enjoyment of our lakes and rivers. Managing zebra mussels costs between $75 million and $91 million each year.

Another invasive species, the emerald ash borer, is a beetle that has devastating impacts on Ontario’s ash trees. Since 2002, the emerald ash borer has spread across much of southwestern Ontario, Sault Ste. Marie and the Ottawa area. This beetle kills approximately 99% of ash trees as it moves through the area and I understand that over 118 hectares have already been affected.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could he explain what our government is doing to stop the spread of these species in Ontario?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Davenport for the question. It’s important that in Ontario we be as proactive as we possibly can. In the past, we’ve been reactive and the member, through her question, has referenced a couple of examples. The zebra mussel is costing us $90 million a year in terms of trying to deal with it once it has arrived. We know by being proactive we can limit that.

The emerald ash borer is another great example. Here, the city of Toronto has spent $37 million over the last five years and removed a significant portion of their urban forest canopy. We need to try and be more proactive where we can be on these issues.

There are examples where we’ve been successful, too. Since the ballast water restrictions and changes have come into place, we don’t believe there has been an introduction of another aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes since 2006, since those changes came into place.

In regard to the emerald ash borer, simply by preheating pallets—they believe the emerald ash borer came in on wooden pallets. Simply by preheating those pallets before they come over, you can deal with it that way. That’s one of the reasons we’ve reintroduced the Invasive Species Act. We want to be proactive on this file and carry this issue forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry for his response and leadership on this important issue.

I’m pleased to hear that our government is taking a proactive role in preventing, detecting and rapidly responding to invasive species. However, often environmentalists, landowners, industry, and hunters and anglers of this province have competing interests when it comes to addressing environmental concerns in Ontario. Municipalities are very interested in preventing the spread of invasive species as they are often at the front lines, paying the cost when these species invade our communities.

Though I know you have worked with a number of stakeholders to bring this legislation forward, my constituents are concerned about the impact this legislation will have on everyday Ontarians and industry.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could he please explain to the House what our government is doing to work with stakeholders, communities and municipalities to prevent invasive species from affecting our environment and economy?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Once again I want to thank the member from Davenport for the question.

Last week or the week before, I was in Ottawa for a conference primarily centred on dealing with biodiversity in Canada—Canada-wide. It was a federal-provincial-territorial ministers meeting dealing with biodiversity, but a significant part of the conference dealt with the issue related to invasive species.

Ontario is seen as a leader on this file. One of the requests that Ontario brought to the conference was that we establish a federal-provincial task force on a go-forward basis to deal with this in a pan-Canadian approach.

Minister Aglukkaq was there. She was the host and the leader on the conference. Through her leadership, as well as with the support of the other federal, provincial and territorial ministers, we received agreement. We have now established and will establish in very short order a task force dealing specifically with invasive species. This will be to the benefit of all of us across Canada. Of course, invasive species know no boundaries.

By-election in Sudbury

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Premier. Premier, here’s a quote, and I begin, “It is of the utmost importance that we lead responsibly, act with integrity, manage spending wisely and are accountable for every action we take.” Can you tell me whose words those are?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I imagine I said that. I’m just thinking that I said that. Certainly, if it’s not a quote from me, it’s certainly something that I believe. In fact, it’s why on Friday, if we’re still talking about the Sudbury by-election, which I imagine we are, I made a clear statement about when I had made the decision and what we were going to do in terms of the ongoing investigation. We were going to co-operate with the authorities and I made it clear what my actions going forward would be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Yes, Premier, the quote is yours. In fact the quote is found in every mandate letter you wrote to your cabinet ministers. Unfortunately, it seems that the value you place on integrity is dependent on circumstances and is flexible when it suits your needs.

During your latest scandal, did it not occur to you that you were asking Gerry Lougheed to break a police services board code of conduct regulation which states that “Board members shall refrain from engaging in conduct that would discredit or compromise the integrity of the board or the police force”? Why did you put Mr. Lougheed in a position where he would be breaking this code?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This question has been asked many times in many different ways. I’ve answered the question. I’ve made it clear that the conversations that took place were in the context of my having decided who the best candidate was going to be for us. That was Glenn Thibeault, and we were trying to work to keep the past candidate involved. That’s what the context was.

Élection partielle à Sudbury / By-election in Sudbury

M. Michael Mantha: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Après avoir demandé à M. Andrew Olivier de prendre une décision afin que la première ministre n’ait pas à nominer son candidat vedette, M me Sorbara a dit à M. Olivier : « Tu es seulement la troisième personne à qui elle a dû demander ça. »

Ma question est simple : qui sont les deux autres personnes et quelles sont les offres qui ont été offertes?

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Je vais dire encore une fois que j’ai fait une décision que Glenn Thibeault était le meilleur candidat pour Sudbury, pour notre parti, et les conversations avec Andrew Olivier étaient des suggestions pour engager notre ancien candidat dans le parti.

I have said repeatedly that the conversations with Andrew Olivier were about suggestions about ways that he could stay involved in the party apart from being a candidate—because he was not going to be the candidate; Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M. Michael Mantha: Encore à la première ministre : M me Pat Sorbara a dit à M. Andrew Olivier : « C’est la troisième fois que la première ministre appelle des gens pour les empêcher de se présenter. »

Encore une fois, ma question est simple : comment s’appellent ces gens? Qui sont-ils?

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: J’ai dit que j’ai fait une décision. Je ne sais pas qui est le troisième. Je ne sais pas qui est cette personne. Je sais que Pat Sorbara a eu une conversation avec Andrew Olivier pour engager Andrew dans le parti parce qu’il était notre ancien candidat. C’est la fin, monsieur.

Energy policies

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is for the Minister of Energy, whom we were able to host, in my riding of Cambridge, in November, talking about energy and the new master servicing agreement that was signed between Bruce Power and Babcock and Wilcox. Thank you for coming.

Minister, it seems that Ontario’s electricity system has changed significantly since the Independent Electricity System Operator, IESO, and the former Ontario Power Authority were created in 1999 and 2004 respectively. In fact, I believe that the areas of overlap and duplication between the two agencies have been noted since a